Jedno sasvim novo i drugačije Presidency..

[Takeshi]

ne daj se rodjo! --------------------- Blagojevich GUILTY: Jury Convicts Rod Blagojevich On 17 Of 20 CountsCHICAGO (AP) — Rod Blagojevich, who rode his talkative everyman image to two terms as Illinois governor before scandal made him a national punch line, was convicted Monday of a wide range of corruption charges, including the incendiary allegation that he tried to sell or trade President Barack Obama's Senate seat.The verdict was a bitter defeat for Blagojevich, who had spent 2 1/2 years professing his innocence on reality TV shows and later on the witness stand. His defense team had insisted that hours of FBI wiretap recordings were just the ramblings of a politician who liked to think out loud. He faces up to 300 years in prison, although sentencing guidelines are sure to reduce his time behind bars.

The decision capped a long-running spectacle in which Blagojevich became famous for blurting on a recorded phone call that his ability to appoint Obama's successor to the Senate was "f---ing golden" and that he wouldn't let it go "for f---ing nothing."Blagojevich becomes the second straight Illinois governor convicted of corruption. His predecessor, George Ryan, is now serving 6 1/2 years in federal prison.Judge James Zagel has ruled that Blagojevich will be barred from travelling outside the area without permission from the judge. A status hearing for sentencing was set for Aug. 1.The case exploded into scandal when Blagojevich was awakened by federal agents on Dec. 9, 2008, at his Chicago home and was led away in handcuffs. Federal prosecutors had been investigating his administration for years, and some of his closest cronies had already been convicted."The conduct would make Lincoln roll over in his grave," U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said before a bank of television cameras after the arrest.Blagojevich, who was also accused of shaking down businessmen for campaign contributions, was swiftly impeached and removed from office.The verdict provided affirmation to Fitzgerald, one of the nation's most prominent prosecutors, who had condemned Blagojevich's dealings as a "political crime spree." Mentioned at times as a possible future FBI director, Fitzgerald pledged to retry the governor after the first jury deadlocked on all but the least serious of 24 charges against him.This time, the 12 jurors voted to convict the 54-year-old Blagojevich on 17 of 20 counts after deliberating nine days. He also faces up to five additional years in prison for his previous conviction of lying to the FBI.After his arrest, Blagojevich called federal prosecutors "cowards and liars" and challenged Fitzgerald to face him in court if he was "man enough."In what many saw as embarrassing indignities for a former governor, he sent his wife to the jungle for a reality television show, "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here," where she had to eat a tarantula. He later showed his own ineptitude at simple office skills before being fired on Donald Trump's "Celebrity Apprentice."To most Illinois residents, he was a reminder of the corruption that has plagued the state for decades.For the second trial, prosecutors streamlined their case, and attorneys for the former governor put on a defense – highlighted by a chatty Blagojevich taking the witness stand for seven days to portray himself as a big talker but not a criminal.Testifying was a gamble for the former congressman, who had promised to take the stand in his first trial but failed to do so after his attorneys rested their case without calling a single witness.Prosecutors dropped Blagojevich's brother as a defendant and cut down on the number of charges against the ousted governor. They summoned about half as many witnesses, asked fewer questions and barely touched on topics not directly related to the charges, such as Blagojevich's lavish shopping or his erratic working habits.Blagojevich seemed to believe he could talk his way out of trouble from the witness stand. Indignant one minute, laughing the next, seemingly in tears once, he endeavored to counteract the blunt, greedy man he appeared to be on FBI wiretaps. He apologized to jurors for the four-letter words that peppered the recordings."When I hear myself swearing like that, I am an F-ing jerk," he told jurors.He clearly sought to solicit sympathy. He spoke about his working-class parents and choked up recounting the day he met his wife, the daughter of a powerful Chicago alderman. He reflected on his feelings of inferiority at college where other students wore preppy "alligator" shirts. Touching on his political life, he portrayed himself as a friend of working people, the poor and elderly.He told jurors his talk on the wiretaps merely displayed his approach to decision-making: to invite a whirlwind of ideas – "good ones, bad ones, stupid ones" – then toss the ill-conceived ones out. To demonstrate the absurdities such brainstorming could generate, he said he once considered appointing himself to the Senate seat so he could travel to Afghanistan and help hunt down Osama bin Laden.Other times, when a prosecutor read wiretap transcripts where Blagojevich seems to speak clearly of trading the Senate seat for a job, Blagojevich told jurors, "I see what I say here, but that's not what I meant."The government offered a starkly different assessment to jurors: Blagojevich was a liar, and had continued to lie, over and over, to their faces.Lead prosecutor Reid Schar started his questioning of Blagojevich with a quick verbal punch: "Mr. Blagojevich, you are a convicted liar, correct?""Yes," Blagojevich eventually answered after the judge overruled a flurry of defense objections.The proof, prosecutors said, was there on the FBI tapes played for jurors. That included his infamous rant: "I've got this thing and it's f---ing golden, and I'm just not giving it up for f---ing nothing. I'm not gonna do it."Prosecutors may also have been helped by testimony from Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., who was called to testify by the defense but whose testimony backfired. During cross-examination, he told jurors that Blagojevich did not appoint Jackson's wife to head the Illinois Lottery in part because Jackson hadn't given the governor a $25,000 campaign donation.In closing arguments, prosecutor Carrie Hamilton likened Blagojevich as Illinois' chief executive to a corrupt traffic cop tapping on car windows and pressing drivers for a bribe to tear up a speeding ticket.

[Roger Sanchez]

"You might not know this, but one of my responsibilities as Commander-in-Chief [of the US armed forces] is to keep an eye on robots. And I'm pleased to report that the robots you manufacture here seem peaceful – at least for now."

[WTF]

I prva izvala na prvi dan kampanje :lol:Welcome Kristen™! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpCKZDwQ-NE

[Roger Sanchez]

Zanimljiva nuclear option da se Car Barry zauvijek riješi problema oko dugo-stropa - uništiti zvijer 14. amandmanom.

[hazard]

Btw, da li neki od SADjana na forumu mogu da mi objasne zasto u SAD federalna vlada toliko brine o samoj administraciji zdravstvenog sistema, tj. zasto je to federalni program?Malo severnije, u Kanadi, gde je zdravstveni sistem prakticno 100% drzavni, federalna vlada je samo kroz neke zakone propisala standarde i okvire, dok je sve ostalo (sama implementacija zdravstvenog sistema, i svi detalji) provincijska nadleznost. Federalna vlada iz federalnog budzeta prebacuje odredjene sume provincijama za zdravstvo i socijalnu zastitu (ta suma je nekad veca, nekad manja), no to je sasvim stvar dobre volje federalne vlade (nisu u obavezi da to cine) kao i provincijskih vlada (jer federalna vlada nema nacin da natera provincijske da te pare potrose bas na zdravstvo i socijalnu zastitu, niti se provincijske vlade obavezuju neki ugovorom da ce bas to ciniti). I to, za razliku od americkog zdravstvenog sistema, vrlo dobro funkcionise (bar kako ja shvatam).Zasto se isti sistem ne primeni u SAD (primetio sam da neki slicnu ideju guraju pod imenom "block grants to states for health care"), kad vec, koliko mi je poznato, drzave u SAD (a ne federacija) regulisu zdravstvene osiguravajuce kuce?

[TBoneSteak]

Btw, da li neki od SADjana™ na forumu mogu da mi objasne zasto u SAD federalna vlada toliko brine o samoj administraciji zdravstvenog sistema, tj. zasto je to federalni program?

(4 all i know this could be a complete bullshit answer)medicaid je 'besplatno' zdravstveno za siromasne/bolesne do 65 godina starosti; finansiran od 50 i nesto% do skoro 80% od strane savezne vlade, ostatak od skoro 50% do 20ak% od strane drzave. iznos koji finansira savezna zavisi od toga koliko je siromasna doticna (goperska naravno) drzava - sto je goperskija to je i siromasnija/skrtija pa savezna uskace sa cak i skoro 80% novca. administriran je od strane pojedinacne drzave. (molim za pomoc oko informacije ko na drzavnom i federalnom nivou, kako, kroz koje poreze placa medicaid?)medicare je 'besplatno' zdravstveno za siromasne/bolesne preko (valjda?) 65 godina (+gosn. Dimitrije :P ); finansiran/administriran od savezne drzave (kroz fica/federalni/ porez koji ukljucuje soc.sec. a koji placaju svi zaposleni???)koliko kapiram preshaltovati gorenavedene sa federalnog na drzavni nivo bi, teoretski gledano, dovelo do smanjenja federalnih a povecanja drzavnih poreza iz kojih bi se sve to onda finansiralo. (sporedni problem u tom slucaju bi bio sto drzave imaju zakonsku obavezu balansiranja budzeta = nemogucnost deficita iz koga bi se ponekad finansirali med&med na drzavnom nivou, za razliku od federalne gde je deficit budzeta moguc)pretpostavljam da bi to bio 1 veliki projekt, smanjivanje federalnih poreza sa trenutnih od 20ak i nesto% do 36%, lets call it 30%, na npr. 20%, a istovremeno povecavanje drzavnih poreza sa trenutnih od 0% do 11%, lets call it 6%, na npr. 16%.takodje, mislim da bi drzave bile finansijski zainteresovane da neplacaju za med&med/ukidaju ga/smanjuju iznos i broj pacijenata ako bi bile 100% finansijski odgovorne za njihove troskove u kojima im sada federalna vlada 'pomaze' sa do 80%. ako je npr. broj tih ljudi oko npr. 50mil na nivou US, njihov broj bi u nekim drzavama mogao biti i samo 500K pa bi npr. 5mil stanovnika te drzave odbilo da placa njihove zdravstvene racune; ako savezna vlada uskoci sa placanjem npr. 60% tih troskova onda je to 1 motivacija individualnim drzavama da trose pristojne iznose na pomoc siromasnima znajuci da ce npr. $1 iz svog budzeta biti matchovan sa npr. $.60 iz federalnog, dakle 1 politicko pitanje ko i kako pomaze siromasnima/bolesnima i kolikoedit: naravno i poslodavci matchuju sa barem 50% iznos koji placaju zaposleni za med&med Edited July 1, 2011 by TBoneSteak

[WTF]

Zasto se isti sistem ne primeni u SAD (primetio sam da neki slicnu ideju guraju pod imenom "block grants to states for health care"), kad vec, koliko mi je poznato, drzave u SAD (a ne federacija) regulisu zdravstvene osiguravajuce kuce?

Canadia™ ima 10 provincija, US&A ima 50 drzava. Sve kanadske provincije, osim mozda QC, su slicne jedna drugoj ko jaje jajetu po pitanjima vlasti i socijalne politike, dok u US&A imas sirok spektar razlicitih pogleda na to sta drzava treba da radi i kako da se postavlja prema svom stanovnistvu. Primera imas na hiljade. Zato je mozda bolje da federalna vlada kontrolise to, jer bi se stvorile ogromne razlike u tome kako bi ljudi bili tretirani u razlicitim drzavama.

[hazard]

Pa nisu bas toliko slicne ko jaje jajetu, imas dosta razlika izmedju npr. Kvebeka, Manitobe/Saskacevane, Alberte i Britanske Kolumbije, zavisno od toga koji deo provincijske politike gledas. Npr. Kvebek je vise na levo, Ontario negde u sredini, Alberta je mnogo vise na desno, a u BC su zeleni hipici (:D).Ja mislim da je upravo cinjenica da drzava ima 50 prednost, jer moze svaka drzava (dobro bas ne svaka, ali grupe njih) da isproba drugaciji model, pa da se vidi koji je najbolje funkcionise, pa bi se onda taj model siroko prihvatio (pa bi mozda u roku od 20 godina dosli do toga da 47 drzava recimo sve imaju manje-vise isti sistem zdravstva). Takodje, upravo to sto jedna drzava moze da ponudi drasticno drugaciji tretman od druge je prednost, jer bi onda u onim drzavama gde su ljudi vecinski protiv komisija smrti javnog zdravstva ne bi bilo, a tamo gde su ljudi hipi-socijalisti bi ga bilo, i onda to ne bi bio toliki nacionalni problem, tj. ne pitanje zdravstva ne bi bilo pitanje koje 'razara' i deli naciju u celini.Mislim drzave tretiraju ljude i po mnogim drugim parametrima dosta razlicito, ali zar to nije upravo poenta federalizma? Da svaka drzava ima visok stepen autonomije da uredjuje svoje dvoriste? Mislim da je to i nuzno u drzavi koje toliko velika (prostorno), sa toliko stanovnika i toliko razlicitih profila ljudi kao sto je to SAD. Mislim da bi dosta "vrucih tema" postale mnogo manje vruce kada bi se njihovo regulisanje prepustilo drzavama. Onda bi od 50 njih 20 odma regulisalo plavlje, njih 20 crvenije a u preostalih 10 bi verovatno nonstop bila klackalica, ali to ne bi bio national issue.

[WTF]

Ti bi da nas pocepas na Hippiestan i Jesusland, pa onda da tvoji crveni mundiri sa severa aneksiraju ove prve

[hazard]

Pa realno, koga bi ti radija za sefa drzave - ovu Bahmanku, ili Princa (buduceg kralja) Vilijama? Ko bi da ti bude glavna medijska licnost, Sara Pejlin ili Princeza (buduca kraljica) Keterin? Mis'im, brate, i onako vazi ono - sto juznije to tuznije :D

Edited July 1, 2011 by hazard

[WTF]

:) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1NR2K-gazo

[TBoneSteak]

as karl rossmann, a poor boy of sixteen who had been packed off to america by his parents because a servant girl had seduced him and got herself a child by him, stood on the liner slowly entering the harbour of new york, a sudden burst of sunshine seemed to illumine the statue of liberty, so that he saw it in a new light, although he had sighted it long before. the arm with the sword rose up as if newly stretched aloft, and round the figure blew the free winds of heaven."so high!" he said to himself.....kafka 'amerika' :D

[Sirius]

Najnovije istrazivanje Gallupa govori da Obama gubi od GOPera izbore ako bi se odrzali sada. Medjutim, sa istorijiske tacke to ne znaci mnogo za GOP jer je i Bob Dol imao prednost u odnosu na Klintona u junu 1995 pa je izgubio 1996.

2012 Voter Preferences for Obama, "Republican" Remain CloseForty-four percent prefer the Republican; 39%, Obamaby Jeffrey M. JonesPRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-four percent of registered voters say they are more likely to vote for "the Republican Party's candidate" and 39% for Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election, according to Gallup's June update. The current five-percentage-point edge for the generic Republican is not a statistically significant lead, and neither side has held a meaningful lead at any point thus far in 2011.

[Dimitrije]

Verovatno bi izgubio da je Generic Republican osoba koja moze da mobilise naciju za ideje koje GOP plasira. To bi bilo izvodljivo imajuci u vidu losu ekonomsku i politicku situaciju i ne bas sjajan Obamin predsednicki opus. Medjutim, problem sa Generic Republican je sto je s obzirom na ponudjeni izbor takav kandidat moron.

Edited July 6, 2011 by Dimitrije

[WTF]

^ Tako je. Najvaznije je tu kako je ceo pooll™ postavljen. To sa generic kandidatom ili projekcija izbornih rezultata na osnovu nekog approval ratinga je najobicnija glupost. Kao prvo, ko je taj "generic GOP candidate"? To je neki vlazni san GOP glasaca, neki novi perfektni Frankenstein kandidat - harizmatican kao Reagan, direktan i "covek iz naroda" kao Bush41, obrazovan iskusan i hladnokrvan kao Bush39, etc... Da li takav kandidat danas postoji? Ne.Drugo - Obamine sanse pocinju da rastu jednom kad se pravi GOP kandidat konacno bude znao, pogotovu ako je to neka extremna ili kontroverzna licnost. Koliko ce ljudi koji nisu bas ljubitelji Obame izaci i glasati za njega samo da se ne desi da u januaru 2013 gledaju inaguraciju predsednice Bachmann ili predsednika Gingricha?Trece - mnogi poollovi™ su tako predstavljeni da se u njima vise ogleda popularnost predsednika i zadovoljstvo njegovim ucinkom (a to je u mnogo slucajeva preslikano zadovoljstvo overall situacijom - ekonomijom pre svega). A to sto neko nije mnogo zadovoljan predsednikom, to ne znaci da na izborima sigurno nece glasati za njega. Pogotovu kad je u pitanju neko sa centristickim pristupom kao Obama gde dosta iskazanog razocaranja i nezadovoljstva dolazi od levih/liberalnih/progresivnih snaga koji mu cine bazu™.